Impact of an earlier sucessfull English colony in America

The Virginia colony established in 1607 was the first sucesfull English colony in what would be the United States. What if we push that date back 50 or even 75 years earlier? Maybe a sucessfull colony established in the mid 1500's.

How would that have changed the development of things? maybe an earlier American revolution?
 
It may have been an earlier launchboard into neighboring areas.

Spain was swiftly entrenched into Peru and Mexico but England, with local supply lines, might snap up Canada and Louisiana, even part of Brazil or the Rio Plata area before Spain/France/Portugual claimed them.

Or, with a better local supply line, these border areas would be easier to conquer in the many wars fought in the new world in colonial times. I'm not sure that Columbia/Venezuela/etc would necessarily be in play for Britain.

By the time the British colonies in OTL were settled and available to assist the empire in any real manner, most of the best resources, ports, lands to the south (Rio, Buenos Aires, Salvador, etc) had Spanish settlements and would prove tough to take.

Britain, with another 50-75 years in the 1600's, may have a bit bigger empire but perhaps not necessarily a stronger one.

I'm not sure if it would affect events like the American revolution unless it was to prevent events like the 7 Years War which helped foster American nationalism and a sense of common purpose. Another 50-75 years of colonization in the 1600's might make the American population a bit bigger, though, but only by so much. American autonomy may come somewhat slower and more peacefully without the 7 Years War and subsequent British heavi-handed governance that instigated the American Revolutionary War.
 

Driftless

Donor
How would the wars (Armada, etc) between the English & Spanish back in Europe play into the idea of an earlier English settlement? Would the America's just be another theater of that fighting? Or would they be more likely to carve out and develop separate patches of turf with minimal interference?

My money would be that the America's become an extention of the European battlefield...
 
I think you'd see any English colony established in the 16th century be quickly attacked by the Spanish. If this colony is not to be destroyed, you need to either:

(1) Have the English be at peace with the Spanish long enough to establish a secure presence. This could be due to Queen Mary and King Phillip's marriage perhaps?

(2) Have the English build up a navy large enough to threaten the Spanish navy much sooner than OTL. One of the reasons the Spanish armada was such a big scare OTL was the fact that at the time, the English navy was much smaller that of the Spanish. Obviously, this would change by 1700, but there's a reason that, for most of the 16th century, England's only presence in the Americas were privateers like Francis Drake.
 

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
Quite possibly a larger US population.

Up to the mid 1700's both New France & the Spanish colonies in North America had very small population and low emigration.

If the Tudors financed "Indentured" workers earlier than the 1700's you might get a larger number of people emigrating to North America.

Even with only a 1,000 people arriving in North America per year, you still ended up with population close on 280,000 in 1700.

If there was mass Indentured emigration, lets just say 20,000 per year you'd end up with a population of 5.6 million in 1700, not only that, but due to cleaner lifestyles and lack of over crowding prevalent in the British cities at the time, you'd have a large population growth of 3%.

This would cause the population to double every 24 to 25 years.

This has serious repercussions for the French & Spanish colonies in North America as it would allow the British colonies to expand faster and further in the interior of America, and push out the French & Spanish through sheer wait of numbers.

Regards filer.
 
It really depends on what type of English colony was established.If it is like the ones from original timeline then yes,revolution coming much sooner.If it is a Spanish style colony then who knows?
 
Popham colony in Maine was wicked successful, being in a geographically strategic location relatively protected from the elements, but it was abandoned when its beloved leader inherited a castle and went back to Britain.

It's hard to judge exactly what the impact of it would have been. One possibility I've considered is that, had the colony continued, there would have been a super-liberal USA encompassing ITL Canada and northern USA, and a conservative southern Dominion of the British Empire.
 
I'm not sure if it would affect events like the American revolution unless it was to prevent events like the 7 Years War which helped foster American nationalism and a sense of common purpose. Another 50-75 years of colonization in the 1600's might make the American population a bit bigger, though, but only by so much. American autonomy may come somewhat slower and more peacefully without the 7 Years War and subsequent British heavi-handed governance that instigated the American Revolutionary War.

I disagree, with another 50-75 years, the American population would be a lot bigger, possibly almost twice as big. Even with a delay in immigration, natural birthrates during the colonial period were some of the highest in recorded history, and another 50 years would likely add on at least another million to the population.

I also disagree with your second point. British actions towards the colonies in the aftermath of the Seven Years War were in large part a reaction to worries that Britain was going to lose control of them. Even the original Stamp Act was designed with this worry in mind. Had the events running up to the American Revolution happened 50 years later, I would say that it probably wouldn't happen at all, but it most definitely would have happened 50 years in the other direction, since Britain had followed significantly more mercantilist policies then.
 
It'd be interesting to have Roanoke Colony succeed preferably in an alliance with the Croatoans. Anyway, I thought one of the reasons that the early
English attempts suffered was from a lack of peasant colonists. Too many people trying to get rich and not enough who knew how to work the land.
 

Driftless

Donor
What events or purpose would either pull the English/Scots/Welsh to the America's in quantity around the 1550's? What makes leaving home for a faraway land more desirable than staying where your were.

Or, what events push them out of their home turf? Religion?
 
Here's the timeline of events IOTL:


  • June 1585 Grenville's 4 ships begin Gathering off the Carolina/Virginia Coast
  • August 1585 107 colonists are left at Roanoke
  • May 1586 Francis Drake arrives and with no supplies to spare takes the colonists back to England (they had survived for 9 months without external help)
  • May 1586 Grenville's relief 'fleet' arrives days after Drake and finds the colony abandoned, he leave 15 men as a garrison for the fort
  • July 1587 A colony of 115 is left at Roanoke, there is little sign of the garrison Grenville left 13 months earlier
  • Late 1587 Governor White leaves for England to seek assistance for the colony, in October 1587 he lands in the west of Ireland
  • April 1588 The Roe and Brave set out for Virginia with supplies and 15 colonists including the wives of some of the 1587 colonists, but engage in piracy and lose so head back to England.
  • March 1590 White heads for Virginia with 2 ships, but after much piracy doesn't arrive until August, finding the colony abandoned in good order.
I just can't help but think in that sequence of events hides that chance to establish a successful colony 20 years earlier than OTL, not the 50 - 75 years of the OP but getting there.

As for the impact, if Roanoke survives then Jamestown should thrive from the outset as should Plymouth.
 
Top